mimicus_interact

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations cover the safety profile (destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description corroborates with 'non-destructive click' and 'Safely explore'. It adds real value beyond the annotations by disclosing scope constraints an agent would otherwise not know: navigation is restricted to 'same-origin reviewed' targets, and the call returns the resulting real image. It stops short of describing session lifetime, failure behavior, or why idempotentHint=false matters.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two compact sentences, with the core purpose and safety constraint front-loaded and the return value appended. No filler or repetition of the tool name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained at length, but the tool has a large nested parameter surface at 0% description coverage and the description only partially compensates. Session prerequisites and per-action parameter expectations are missing for what is a stateful, open-world interaction tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the nested interaction object has 11 enum actions plus x/y, selector, viewport, endX/endY, steps, waitMs, key and url. The description recovers roughly two-thirds of the action vocabulary (hover, focus, click, scroll, pointer, navigate, key, resize/viewport, reducedMotion) but omits touch, drag and wait, and says nothing about selector, coordinates, or step semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (interact/explore) plus resource (a selected page) and enumerates the supported interaction kinds, so the agent knows this is the action-performing tool rather than the capture or analysis ones. It does not, however, distinguish itself explicitly from close siblings like mimicus_explore_page or mimicus_capture_view, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Safely explore a selected page' and 'a selected page' imply this tool is used after a page has been selected/opened, but no prerequisites (session creation), ordering relative to siblings, or when-not-to-use conditions are given. Usage is inferable from context rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.